State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Port Blair
Present: Justice Arunabha Basu, President.
Smti Biji Thomas, Member.
Shri Basudev Dass, Member.
APPEAL NO.03 OF 2012
The District & Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair
(Through authorized representative, Shri. P.N Unny, Nazir of the Courts)
…Appellant
-Vs-
1. M/s Xerox India Limited, 6, Jangpura Extension, Near Post Officer New Delhi – 110014, (Through the authorized dealer
2. M/s Sunny Diesel Sales & Services,27, Dashmesh Market
Dr. Diwan Singh Gurudwara, Port Blair)
…Respondents
Advocate for appellant Mr.D.Ilango
Advocate for respondent Ms.Babita Dass.
JUDGMENT
Dated:21.06.12
The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 04.01.12 passed by the learned District Forum, whereby and were under the learned Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant and imposed a cost of Rs.100/-.
For the purpose of present discussion the case which was filed before the Forum by the appellant in his capacity as complaint need not be reproduced. In short the case was filed as the complainant was aggrieved about the functioning of Photostat machine installed by the respondent. On scrutiny of the order under challenge it appears that the learned Forum was of the view that authorization given by the appellant in favour of one Shri.P.N.Unny, Nazir of the court was not in order and the learned Forum also took into account the repeated absence of the complainant during proceeding of the case.
The learned Forum was of the view that the authorization given by the appellant was not in order as nothing is shown that such authorization was in existence on the date of presenting the complaint.
We have examined the letter of authorization issued by the District Judge. No doubt the same is undated. But if we look into the language we find that the person authorized was empowered to sign, verify and file petitions etc.,before the Forum. Now, if we look into the petition of the complaint we find that the complaint was duly signed and verified by the authorized officer.If that be so, then it is reasonable to presume that such authorization was given prior to filing the complaint or atleast before presenting the complaint before the District Forum.The signature of the person instituting the complaint or the agent authorized to do so must be recorded while presenting the complaint before the Forum. There is nothing to show that on that date of the presentation of complaint it does not bear the signature of the authorized officer as we do not find any such recital in the initial order by the Forum dated 29.03.12. This being the position, we are of the view that there was valid authorization on the date of the presentation of complaint in spite of the fact that the letter of authorization was not dated. It may be pointed out that the complainant was District Judge A&N Islands and it is not expected that the person discharging judicial function shall commit silly mistakes.
In addition to what has been stated above we may point that in terms of A&N Islands Consumer Protection rules 2011 under the chapter procedure hearing of appeal it is stipulated that it is obligatory for the parties or other authorized agent who appear before the State Commission. A party can appear either personally or through the learned advocate appearing for the party. It is correct that on the date of passing the order none appears for the complainant/appellant, so in effect the learned Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of default but in the order we do not find any reflection to that effect.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondent drew our attention that in the memo of the appeal there is clear recital that OP No.2 submitted that he has installed a new machine which is still working. We are of the view that the submission on behalf of the OP even though bonafide cannot be accepted as because the learned Forum did not decide the application on merit and came to a positive finding with the grievances of the complainant has been satisfied by the OP under this circumstances we are not in a position to accept the submission made by learned advocate for the respondent.
Learned advocate for the appellant submitted and in our view rightly that the Forum created under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act should not rigidly follow procedure and should not adopt hyper technical approach while deciding an application. We are of the view that learned Forum should have decide the application on merit after hearing the submission made by the OP otherwise he should pass an order that the complaint is dismissed for default. We are in agreement that the scope of the act prescribes speedy and summary remedy. Rules of procedure should not normally come in the way to dispense substantial justice.
With this observation we are unable to upheld the order passed by the learned Forum and we are of the view that after setting aside the order the matter should be remitted before the learned Forum to decide the same afresh and on merit. We expect that both the parties and their learned advocates should proceed with the case with utmost sincerity. With this observation the appeal stands allowed.
